Please answer this: Given the below context:  At the beginning of 1944, Ron Jeffery, an agent of British and Polish intelligence in occupied Poland, eluded the Abwehr and travelled to London with a report from Poland to the British government. His efforts were at first highly regarded, but subsequently ignored by the British, which a disillusioned Jeffery later attributed to the treachery of Kim Philby and other high-ranking communist agents entrenched in the British system. Jeffery tried to inform the British government about the Katyn massacre, but was as a result released from the Army.In 1947, the Polish Government in exile 1944-1946 report on Katyn was transmitted to Telford TaylorIn the United States a similar line was taken, notwithstanding two official intelligence reports into the Katyn massacre that contradicted the official position. In 1944, Roosevelt assigned his special emissary to the Balkans, Navy Lieutenant Commander George Earle, to produce a report on Katyn. Earle concluded the massacre was committed by the Soviet Union. Having consulted with Elmer Davis, director of the United States Office of War Information, Roosevelt rejected the conclusion (officially), declared he was convinced of Nazi Germany's responsibility, and ordered that Earle's report be suppressed. When Earle requested permission to publish his findings, the President issued a written order to desist. Earle was reassigned and spent the rest of the war in American Samoa.A further report in 1945, supporting the same conclusion, was produced and stifled. In 1943, the Germans took two U.S. POWs—Capt. Donald B. Stewart and Col. John H. Van Vliet—to Katyn for an international news conference. Documents released by the National Archives and Records Administration in September 2012 revealed Stewart and Van Vliet sent coded messages to their American superiors indicating they saw proof that implicated the Soviets. Three lines of evidence were cited. Firstly, the Polish corpses were in such an advanced state of decay that the Nazis could not have killed them, as they had only...  Guess a valid title for it!
++++++++
Answer: Katyn massacre


Please answer this: Given the below context:  At the beginning of December 1910 Smoller, using the name Joe Levi, visited Exchange Buildings, a small cul-de-sac that backed onto the properties of Houndsditch. He rented No. 11 Exchange Buildings; a week later Svaars rented number 9 for a month, saying he needed it for storage. The gang were unable to rent number 10, which was directly behind their target, 119 Houndsditch, the jeweller's shop owned by Henry Samuel Harris. The safe in the jeweller's was reputed to contain between £20,000 and £30,000 worth of jewellery; Harris's son later stated the total was only around £7,000. Over the next two weeks the gang brought in various pieces of necessary equipment, including a 60-foot (18.25 m) length of India rubber gas hose, a cylinder of compressed gas and a selection of tools, including diamond-tipped drills.With the exception of Gardstein, the identities of the gang members present in Houndsditch on the night of 16 December 1910 have never been confirmed. Bernard Porter, writing in the Dictionary of National Biography, considers that Sokoloff and Peters were present and, in all likelihood, were two of those who shot the policemen who interrupted their burglary. Porter opines that Peter the Painter was probably not at the property that night, while the journalist J P Eddy suggests that Svaars was among those present. Donald Rumbelow, a former policeman who wrote a history of the events, considers that those present consisted of Gardstein, Smoller, Peters and Dubof, with a second group in case the work needed to continue into the following day, which included among their number Sokolow and Svaars. Rumbelow considers a third group on standby, staying at Hoffman's lodgings, to have comprised Hoffman, Rosen and Osip Federoff, an unemployed locksmith. Rumbelow also considers that present at the events—either as lookouts or in unknown capacities—were Peter the Painter and Nina Vassilleva.On 16 December, working from the small yard behind 11 Exchange Buildings, the gang began to break through the back wall of the...  Guess a valid title for it!
++++++++
Answer: Siege of Sidney Street


Please answer this: Given the below context:  The story begins with Beatrix Potter nervously packing her portfolio and narrating that she is a London spinster, and that her ambition to become a children's author meets with wide disapproval. She and her chaperone, Miss Wiggin, visit the publishing house of Harold and Fruing Warne, who decide to publish her book. Beatrix is thrilled and returns home, taking a drive through the parks to celebrate first. However, it is revealed the Warne brothers think her book is ridiculous and will no doubt be a failure. The only reason they agreed to publish it is because they promised their younger brother, Norman, a project. When Norman Warne visits Beatrix, they make decisions about her book regarding size, colour and price. Norman admits he has never done anything like this before but has given her book a great deal of thought. Beatrix realises what Norman's brothers have done regarding him and her, but they become determined to prove them wrong. Norman takes Beatrix to the printer, and she has her drawings reproduced and copies of her book sold. Thrilled, Beatrix and Norman visit the Warne family, where Beatrix meets the wheelchair-bound but lovely Mrs. Warne, and Norman's sister, Amelia, nicknamed "Millie". Millie has decided that she and Beatrix are going to be friends and is overjoyed that Beatrix is a spinster, as is Millie, who believes men to be nothing but bores. The family befriends Beatrix, yet Helen Potter, Beatrix's social-climbing mother, is unhappy about her daughter spending time in the company of 'tradesmen'.  Guess a valid title for it!
++++++++
Answer:
Miss Potter